Members of the OECD held a High Level Meeting in Paris this week, releasing a Communique on principles for internet policy-making on June 29 2011. Although we applaud the openness of governments and the OECD secretariat to include non-governmental stakeholder constituencies in the meeting, as a worldwide network promoting the use of the internet for social justice and sustainable development since 1990, the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is concerned about the overwhelming emphasis the Communique places on enforcement of intellectual property laws.

In particular, we worry that the Communique’s approach to intellectual property rights does not fully appreciate the complexities of the online media environment.

The Communique was not endorsed by the Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council —a coalition of more than 80 civil society groups from across the globe that provide input into the development of OECD policies relating to the Internet— of which APC is a member. We support the CSISAC position.

As detailed in the research, which was produced for Media Piracy in Emerging Economies by the Social Sciences Research Council, we found that a narrow focus on the criminal aspect of the violation of intellectual property to be “increasingly counterproductive for all parties, from developing-country governments, to consumers, to the copyright interests that drive the global enforcement debate.”

We believe the approach to intellectual property issues should be more nuanced. Creators of content have rights that need to be protected – should they so wish. But the enormous potential of the internet to increase the development and sharing of knowledge should not be put at risk through the enacting of overly-stringent laws — an approach we note is favoured mostly by large corporations rather than individual creators.

Anyone involved in the development of the internet over the last twenty years knows that transgression has probably been a far greater driver of innovation than IP protection.

We do not want to imply that illegal use of content is a sustainable alternative. What we believe is that policy makers should focus on keeping the internet open, encouraging its potential for strengthening the information and knowledge commons.

And let those with business interests on the internet apply their resources and creativity to come up with models that thrive on openness rather than on restrictions.

Ambivalence towards intermediary liability

Further, while the Communique frequently refers to the free flow of information and freedom of expression, it fails to give these the primacy that they deserve.

“While we recognise that there is a space for self-regulation in the internet industry, far greater emphasis should be placed on ensuring that intermediaries are not held liable and not vulnerable to enforcement by States to violate users’ rights without due process that adheres to international human rights standards,” she says.

As it stands today, affordable access is not ubiquitous. The internet is still a very uneven playing field. What’s more, the importance of openness — which the document stresses — is constantly at risk, even though it is so deeply embedded in the internet culture. Therefore emphasising and further exploring net neutrality and what it means in an evolving internet should get far more attention than it does in this Communique.

The reality is that the internet is a public space, even if it is not publicly owned. Therefore it is vital that the public interest is a primary internet policy-making principle. We need to recognise the evolving nature of the internet as a public space that is developed, operated and used by multiple stakeholder groups. Public interest therefore has to feature prominently as a principle in internet policy.